On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > > It would be possible to have orphaned non-temp tables if you'd suffered > a crash during the transaction that created those tables. Ordinarily > a newly-created table file wouldn't be that large, but if your workflow > created tables and shoved boatloads of data into them in the same > transaction, it's not so hard to see this becoming an issue. > I think the working theory is that these were very like a number of very large (multi-hundred-GB materialised views). > > The core problem with zapping non-temp table files is that you can't > do that unless you're sure you have consistent, up-to-date pg_class > data that nobody else is busy adding to. It's hard to see an external > application being able to do that safely. You certainly can't do it > at the point in the postmaster startup cycle where we currently do > the other things --- for those, we rely only on filesystem naming > conventions to identify what to zap. Yeah that occurred to me. At this point I would settle for something I could run with Postgres in single user mode. Although that is very far from ideal. So what I wonder is if at least a short-term solution might be a utility that starts Postgres in single user mode and we insist that PostgreSQL is otherwise not running before the run. I am certainly not feeling qualified at present for more advanced solutions but that I might be able to do. > > regards, tom lane > -- Best Regards, Chris Travers Database Administrator Tel: +49 162 9037 210 | Skype: einhverfr | www.adjust.com Saarbrücker Straße 37a, 10405 Berlin
